The child born to the deceased employee’s second wife cannot be denied a compassionate appointment, according to the Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench). The Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India 2022, which stated that a compassionate appointment policy cannot discriminate against a person solely on the basis of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate, was cited by the bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur to reach its conclusion.

Mohan Singh, the employee who passed away in the current case before the High Court, died while working for the state’s irrigation department. A son from his second wife and two wives were left behind by him. In accordance with the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, his second wife submitted an application for a compassionate appointment. Her application was rejected, on the grounds that she wasn’t the lawfully married wife of the deceased employee and hence wasn’t qualified for the position. She appealed that decision to the High Court, but while it was pending, she turned overage; as a result, the writ suit was withdrawn in order to give her the liberty to pursue the case of her son, Jatin Singh’s compassionate appointment. The irrigation department then rejected his representation on the grounds that, as the son of the second wife, he was not entitled to the appointment.

As a result, the current petition was brought before the court. The court stated that, although the compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. It did this by first taking note of the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar. A policy for compassionate appointments, which has the force of law, cannot discriminate on any of the reasons listed in Article 16(2), including one of descent, according to Justice Mathur’s further opinion.

In light of this, the respondents were instructed to consider son’s request for a compassionate appointment in accordance with the Rules of 1996 if he meets all other requirements within three months.